The second amendment is bullshit, and we all know it

I was glad to hear Bill Maher say it last week.

I am fully aware that the likelihood of an actual repeal of the second amendment is far fetched, to say the least. That is not the topic of this post. I am not talking about the likelihood, popularity of, or support for the full repeal of the second amendment. I am talking about the validity of the second amendment itself.

Comparisons of the second amendment with the first, or with any of the others, or with prohibition (an amendment that was ironically, REPEALED!), are invalid. If you counter my argument that the second amendment is bullshit by citing the others, you are committing the slippery slope logical fallacy. You're changing the subject.

The reasons that the founding fathers included the second amendment in the bill of rights is also a dodge. Those reasons, whether they were valid or not at the time, have no bearing on the validity of the second amendment today. Laws change over time, all the time, including amendments to the Constitution (see: Prohibition).

The fact of the matter is, if America wants to actually solve the problem of gun violence, the only way to do it is a full repeal of this law. No other civilized nation on Earth has anything remotely resembling a "right" to "bear arms". I put the word "right" in quotes because to say that owning a firearm is some sort of inalienable human right is complete and utter bullshit. We all know it, so let's just say it. I understand why Obama and everyone else have to pretend like they want to solve this problem "while still respecting second amendment rights", but again, that's not the subject of this post.

The fact of the matter is, America has more gun related deaths, both homicides, suicides, accidents, and the like, than any other first world nation on the planet. When gun nuts cite the dropping numbers of gun deaths over the years, or the drop in crime in general over the years, they conveniently ignore the fact that despite the trend other countries have gun crime rates orders of magnitude below America. There is 1 per capita gun crime in Canada for every seven in America. Seven. That's not some minor blip. That's 700%. How many people here would like a stock they might own to increase 700%?

The fact of the matter is the UK, Canada, Japan, France, and the like all play the same video games, all watch the same TV shows and violent movies, all have violent histories. What these other countries DO NOT have is an obsolete, ill advised, bullshit law etched into their Constitutions that give people a "right" to own a gun. These other countries have been able to pass laws restricting gun ownership, regulating it, setting up registries and background checks and the like, because they don't have some stupid amendment in their Constitutions making it damn near impossible for them to do so.

The fact of the matter is these other countries have not, I repeat, have not BANNED ALL GUNS. If you live in Canada, you can buy a gun. If you live in the UK, you can buy a gun. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, you are restricted to only certain types of guns, etcetera. The so called "responsible gun owners" in these other countries actually ARE responsible gun owners, because the system is set up to make sure that they are. They have to get background checks, and licenses, and have to pass tests, be put into a national registry, etcetera. They may not have a "right" etched into their constitutions, but they still own guns. Can you imagine if all you had to do to drive a car was buy one? (And to cite the high level of deaths by auto accident is also a change of subject, as auto deaths would undoubtedly be FAR HIGHER if not for the restrictions on licensing and registering).

The fact of the matter is that criminals who are hell bent on getting guns do not generally succeed at getting guns in these other countries. While a few may, the vast majority of criminals have a hell of a difficult time getting their hands on a gun when guns are regulated to the extent that they are in these other countries. They usually opt for knives or bats, or other things that are objectively (NOT subjectively, OBJECTIVELY) far less lethal than guns. And the guns that they usually DO get their hands on are still far less lethal than the bushmaster .223 or other similarly designed military style weapons that should only see a battlefield. And just as a little side note here, before I get too off topic, I want to say that guns are not TOOLS like hammers or saws or knives or pickaxes. While these TOOLS may be used for lethal purposes, guns are WEAPONS. Label them as such.

The fact of the matter is that this so called "freedom" and "right" to own a gun is what's holding America back from solving this problem that has already been solved in every other civilized nation on Earth. Gun nuts need to stop bullshitting themselves and bullshitting everyone else. You don't have your guns because it's your right to have them. You have them because you LIKE them. You get off on shooting them. It's a fetish. It's a vice. You grew up with it, passed down through the generations, and you think it's normal. And you know what? That's OK for you. But you're vice is harming society.

The fact of the matter is that EVERY SINGLE GUN shot by a criminal was once purchased by one of you. They got their hands on it somehow because you sold it, or you lost it, or it got stolen from you. You were irresponsible somewhere along the line, and the government had no power to make sure that your gun was traced somehow. They had no power to do it because they can't get past this bullshit thing called the second amendment. They can't pass a law to make sure that you truly are the responsible gun owner you say you are. And guess what? You're most likely not. You're most likely going to shoot a family member with it. You're most likely going to kill yourself, either intentionally or accidentally, with it. These are statistical facts, not opinions. Everybody thinks it will never happen to them until it actually does. Stats is stats, math is math, reality is reality.

The fact of the matter is that other civilized countries have social safety nets like universal health care, and that does help. America doesn't do enough in terms of education, mental health, and the like. But creating a true social safety net in America, while not doing anything about the gun laws, will only serve to reduce violence overall, but not GUN VIOLENCE in particular. The people who fall through the social safety net will still have easy access to guns, unlike the people in other countries who opt to use knives. Again, knives and other things that can do harm to others are FAR LESS LIKELY to be as lethal as guns. On the very same calendar day of the Sandy Hook shooting - THE SAME DAMN DAY, a man in China attacked school children with a knife. Not one of those children died.

The second amendment. That's the problem. Let's stop beating around the bush. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Enough bullshit. Until America repeals the second amendment, the gun problem will continue to exist. The gun problem is real. It is not imaginary. The numbers are the numbers. When 7 people are killed by a gun in America for every 1 person in Canada, the gun nuts can cite every single statistic in their book of tricks that they want to. Falling crime rates, lower crime rates in right to carry areas, whatever the hell they want to cite. They cannot refute the first fact. What's the point of saying gun crime rates are falling, or that gun crime rates are lower in right to carry areas when you purposely ignore the fact that the gun crime rates are still astronomically higher than in other countries that solved this problem? The point is to obfuscate. To lie. To change the subject. To keep everyone distracted from the fact that the gun problem is real and that it's not going away any time soon.

At least not until the second amendment is repealed. Likely to happen? Of course not. But it is what must happen.

2. Nice rant. Welcome to DU.

3. We need socialized medicine

To handle the damage caused by the Second Amendment.

We're actually getting better at reducing gun death rates. As a matter of fact shootings have increased but gun deaths have decreased due to better medical skills and technology. We can put a shooting victim back out on the street so they can get shot again. It does happen.

51. You didnt understand my question

6. Hard to argue,

when you wish to define the argument the the 2A is invalid but will not allow mention of any other amendment nor the reasons the founding fathers wrote it. Home field advantage I guess.

So I will argue this:

They usually opt for knives or bats, or other things that are objectively (NOT subjectively, OBJECTIVELY) far less lethal than guns

You are saying that you are OBJECTIVELY less dead following a lethal attack with a knife than a gun.

They can't pass a law to make sure that you truly are the responsible gun owner you say you are. And guess what?You're most likely not. You're most likely going to shoot a family member with it. You're most likely going to kill yourself, either intentionally or accidentally, with it. These are statistical facts, not opinions. Everybody thinks it will never happen to them until it actually does. Stats is stats, math is math, reality is reality.

Since stats are stats you have a reference to a study that shows the majority of gun owners will some day shoot a family member or kill themselves...

52. Because those things are IRRELEVANT

Stick to the topic. The topic is not the first amendment, nor is the topic the founding fathers' reasons for writing the second amendment. (Founding fathers who, incidentally, owned slaves and didn't think to give women the right to vote. They are not gods). Home field advantage, my ass. You need to make actual valid arguments instead of dodging the issue.

To wit, you "rebuttals":

You are saying that you are OBJECTIVELY less dead following a lethal attack with a knife than a gun.

Uhhhhh, no. This is so utterly laughable that I don't even know why I'm wasting my time responding to it. It's harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. It may not be immediately lethal, you can't mow down 30 people in 30 seconds with a knife, why am I even still typing? Stop being ridiculous.

Since stats are stats you have a reference to a study that shows the majority of gun owners will some day shoot a family member or kill themselves...

Google it. It is undisputed fact that gun owners have a greater statistical incidence of accidental gun deaths, suicides, etcetera. This is not new news, either.

65. No dodge to the issue

I am sticking to the topic according to your rules.

"Google it" your claim, you back it. If I turned in a paper to my prof in my last class (World Governance) and my support was google it, he would have handed it back to me after sending it through the shredder.
There are various statistics out there of varying validity showing higher risks. I know of none that support your claim that it affects the majority. Your statement "most likely" implies greater than 50%.It is reasonable to ask for support to such a reaching claim.

119. Which is WHY Meta should be returned.

Emilyg and r_digital would never have been exposed as the trolls they were without Meta. Other obnoxious posters would never have been slapped down in public, because as my most recent three or so hides prove, Meta behavior is not really appreciated in the other forums and groups.

7. The original intent was to have the country defended by

voluntary militias in every state to avoid the burden and the dangers inherent in having a standing army. When that turned out to be completely unrealistic, they gave up on the idea quickly.

Unfortunately, those saner times didn't result in deleting that amendment.

Now we have putzes in every community assembling arsenals and acting like two year olds whose mothers are trying to take the blankie away to wash it when someone suggests that maybe the rapid fire, semi auto guns with the big magazines need to be gotten out of private homes and off the street.

I'm completely sick of these people, like I'm completely sick of all self absorbed types who find it impossible to focus on the greater good of the country. I'm sick of the death toll their "hobby" is causing. And I'm sick of every weakling in Congress who allows himself to be purchased by the NRA.

10. 2nd Amend is as obsolete as the Muskets it was for

THe 2nd Amendment was written for the maintenance of our citizen Militias because of certain Founding Fathers like Jefferson refusing to OK standing Armies. Hell, the country's first paid police dept wasnt even until 1837 in Boston.
It took 100 muskets to equal one soldier or police gun today.
The War of 1812 was fought and won with citizen militias. They worked then.... but not so much now. TOTALLY OBSOLETE. Time to repeal the destructive 2nd Amendment. As they say, the Constitution isnt (or shouldnt be) a suicide pact.

56. Now friendly, he could have used a "press." A wooden one, even.

11. At the time that the constitution was written

Many native tribes were forming raiding parties against settlers in the "frontier" areas of the colonies. The right to defend ones self and family had to be protected. Now that the nearly complete genocide of native American tribes is over, and we no longer need to defend our homes from those invaders, we probably should get rid of that "silly" amendment.

16. I'm just afraid that a nation

23. It won't be guns that does the world in

but we are a nation born in blood.
Our founding fathers and the patriots that fought the revolution did what was right and just.
I wouldn't change a thing about the early history when our nation was born.

I'm not talking about the genocide we inflicted on Native Americans or the shame our country
had with slavery .

31. No, it's not utterly irrelevant, at least not everywhere

My grandfather has a farm in West Texas. It makes sense for him to have guns in the home (it can take police 30 to 45 minutes to get there). It makes sense for him to carry a gun on his land (there are coyotes, rattlesnakes, and still the occasional bobcat).

A lot of people have never lived in a part of the country like that, and can't imagine living in a part of the country like that, but that is still part of the US.

50. The famous SCOTUS case of Hocus vs. Pocus...

18. It doesn't matter, does it?

People overwhelmingly believe that the 2nd Amendment grants them free access to guns. So it really doesn't matter how many times you rationalize what the 2A means or doesn't mean, the people clearly want their guns.

Gun control is a waste of time, don't bother. We could have 10 school massacres a week and Americans would still demand their guns.

22. And that's the problem really... to most 2nd amendment might as well outright say guns

but it says arms.

And often knife laws are more strict than gun laws.

And no weapons deadlier than guns like explosives or tanks or rocket launchers are covered because they are considered destructive devices. On the other hand, some rounds such as .50 cal... which is an ANTI-MATERIEL round is covered. I tried to ask one gun guy about this and he said it's anti-materiel and an anti-personnel round. Really, I've never heard of something that is anti-materiel but not anti-personnel.

Kind of silly because again the 2A doesn't say guns, but the 2A has been interpreted to mean guns, and only guns.

But just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it can't be changed. SCOTUS can overrule Heller...

46. Well, like I said the .50 cal is specifically designed as an anti-materiel round. A .458 for example

is designed for big game, but isn't anti materiel. I don't see why the cut off limit isn't restricted to stuff that will pierce lightly armored vehicles like the .50 is. And if not, why not artillery? Some of that stuff is essentially just a gigantic gun.

Also it's not just the caliber of the bullet, but the grain used with it and whatnot. The .50 with the largest grain used has 3x the energy of a .458...

48. LOL. Nope it was designed as an anti tank and anti aircraft gun in WW1. Yes it is used sometimes to

"The .50 Browning Machine Gun cartridge (.50 BMG) was first created in response to the use of German anti-tank rifles in WW1 and whilst the rapid increase in amour capabilities on battle tanks rapidly outpaced the ability of handheld weaponry to penetrate, it has still been successful on lighter targets ."

29. Nobody Seems To Understand What The 2nd Amendment Means

The 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I think everybody would agree with that.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the individual right to bear arms is "unconnected" to service in a militia. Say what?

In the Articles of Confederation the 2nd Amendment would made some sense. With a weak central government and a loose confederation of States it was thought that the defense of the nation would rest in the hands of the individual State militias -- todays National Guard. It made sense that militia members could take their guns home with them so they wouldn't have to go to an armory to pick up their weapons because that might take too long. But under the Constitution the President was also Commander in Chief of a standing federal military. Now the 2nd Amendment is an odd fit.

Any literate American can see that the right of the people to bear arms is closely connected to a well regulated militia in the language of the 2nd Amendment. When you have a Supreme Court that is hyper political you must expect non-defensible decisions like Heller and the decoupling language. Heller is the only Supreme Court decision that mentions a militia and then it rejects any connection to a militia, which is the direct opposite of the actual language. The 2nd Amendment in Heller was reduced to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Talk about activists Judges!

71. The most rabid Second Amendment absolutists don't live in remote areas

Stainless steel revolvers were invented for farmers, who wanted guns they could put in tractor toolboxes for use on coyotes. We have lots of farmers in Idaho who do that. But those farmers never go to the gun rallies. The guys with a hundred guns who can't shoot go to gun rallies.

Farmers aren't worried about gun restrictions because farmers can get anything they need. If anyone but a farmer were to go to town and buy a trailer full of ammonium nitrate, a tank of diesel and a box of dynamite, they wouldn't even bother calling the state SWAT team - they'd just shoot the guy. Farmers have legitimate uses for all those things. If farmers can own dynamite guns wouldn't be a problem.

39. It's also been completely twisted by modern gun fanatics into something that the founders

would not even recognize.

The second amendment was there to ensure citizen militias, in order to avoid having a standing army. The purpose of the militia was not to defend against one's own government, as modern gun nuts would like to believe, but to defend against external threats.

It has absolutely nothing to do with civilians owning guns for self defense, or carrying concealed weapons, or hunting, or anything of the sort.

Since we now have a standing army, and it works just fine, the second amendment is basically obsolete. Except that right-wingers misinterpret it in order to justify the NRA's extremist view of society saturated with guns.

41. Damn straight. K&R. nt

43. This is why we have the Bill of Rights - to protect against people like Bill Maher.

That's why the Bill of Rights was insisted upon in the first place.
Because they knew, sooner or later, the rights protected in these amendments would some day - by some idiots- be considered bullshit.

These amendments are a slap in the face to those who think they know best about others rights.

59. Notice that they can't respond

Because for lack of a better term, I disarmed them from the get go. They can't respond to the facts because the facts are not on their side. They have to dodge the issue with bullshit about the founding fathers or about quill pens. They have nothing and they know it.

60. I'll respond.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's it. You can compare us to Canada, the UK, Japan etc... But our constitution is ours. You don't like guns, don't buy one. But guns are here to stay like it or not. Deal with it.

68. The Second Amendment does not confer the right to possess a firearm. That's the important fact.

You may think you can add 1+1 and get -2 but that's not how it works.

The Founding Fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence that ""We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (emphasis mine)."

The right to possess a firearm existed before the Constitution was written. You'll see this in the way the Second Amendment is worded; nowhere does it say "shall enjoy the right" or "this right is conferred". What it says is that a right (already thought to exist) shall not be infringed upon by the government.

Maybe that's why you're not getting the arguments you hoped to with your 14th post at DU. Granted, it got all the right posters whipped up into a frothy frenzy but notice who, and over what. The death by gun ratio between Canada and the United States is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Let's talk about repealing the Second Amendment.

"Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Two-thirds. Let's just take that little nugget and roll it around in our mouths for a second. There are something on the order of one hundred million gun owners in the United States. That is roughly 1/3 of the population. Now, you can believe (as you seem to do) that the 2/3 who don't own a gun would like to see the 1/3 who do, lose the right to possess them. You'll excuse me if I state that's one of the funniest things I've ever heard. You see, on the point of repeal you simply don't have the numbers. And, let's not forget that the FIRST AND ONLY wish of any congresscritter or senator is to be reelected. That said, don't hold your breath waiting for 2/3 of them to vote against the will of the people.

The reason Heller was possible is the right to own a firearm pre-dates the Constitution. Since the Second Amendment actually confers no right, the clause containing the words "well-regulated militia" is completely irrelevant to whether or not private citizens can own guns.

I respectfully suggest you turn your attention to organizing Constitutional Conventions rather than simply trying to stir up shit on DU by posting an argument we've all seen here a hundred times before your arrival last week.

78. You also completely ignored the point.

Never mind that your understanding of the constitution and the roots of the second amendment would get you flunked out of middle school, what you seemed to miss is that the OP argued that the second amendment is a bad thing and that it should be repealed.

Whether it actually is repealed is a separate question of whether it should be repealed. Can you understand that? Care to respond to any of the actual points made by the OP?

79. Welcome to DU. I see you've found the gun trolls.

If you're looking for a cogent argument from team NRA, you're not going to find it. They just repeat NRA talking points and quote the second amendment over and over again. Sometimes they use all-caps or boldface, but other than that there's not much variety.

77. In other words, you won't even try and argue that the right-wing interpretation of 2A is

a good thing. Just that it exists, and as long as the GOP continues to be able to get crazy teabagger nutjobs elected, it's not going to change.

Kinda like, when we were invading Iraq, the fact that there were no WMDs was, in a sense, irrelevant, because Bush was going to use that as a rationale for war no matter what the truth is.

Kinda like, all of the scientific evidence demonstrate that global warming is real, and that humans are to blame, but as long as the James Inhofes can keep getting elected, we're never going to do anything about it.

83. Sigh...once again, people miss the obvious

Whether it is guns, abortion, smoking in bars, owning a pit bull, etc and so on.

There are underlying issues that many progressives support...except they abandon that support on some issues they don't like.

Owning a gun, having an abortion, these are issues of freedom and choice.

We don't label people fighting for the right to have an abortion nuts/humpers/etc. If we did we would get an earful and probably banned.

Gun owners (and people like me who don't own one) feel the core issues extends to many other areas and have just as much passion about preserving other rights. People may make fun of me for my stance about smoking in bars (I do smoke, but rarely go to bars) - I see it as adults being allowed to choose where they want to go (their body, their choice). Unlike hospitals/grocery store/etc you don't have to go to a bar. I believe in adults being allowed to make adult choices.

Some believe that others should make choices for us and that only some others should have certain rights (ie, joe down the street works for the government and is now magically better than the rest of us so he can have a gun and smoke at his building - , like in Oklahoma. When the passed a bill about smoking they exempted the state house...)

I am not gay. Not getting a gay marriage. Don't own a gun. Can't get an abortion - but all of these things are rights I think we should have and protect.

A tiny, tiny few who own guns commit crimes with them (for which laws are already there to punish them if they do) and we whip up the machine to make it sound like every gun owner is a crazy loon - from Obama down to joe bob down the street.

And because one defends such they get called gun humpers. Nice.

So from now on when I see anyone protecting a right I will use humper to show their devotion. Gay marriage humper. Abortion humper. Women's rights humper.

It sounds pretty stupid. Because it is.
High capacity abortions? An abortion with a bayonet attachment? Bump-stock abortions?

Late Term, using abortion on certain sexes of babies, having others pay for an elective medical procedure....I am sure if one tried they could come up with many things they would like to use to whittle away at abortion with. Oh wait...they already are and we pretty well know those people want one thing, to eventually outlaw abortion.

Many see the whole gun debate going on now heading down the same road and like to proceed with caution and not drive around with pics of aborted fetuses on trucks to stir up emotions...err I mean showing pics of acts done by criminals with guns.

Again...what percent of gun owners use them in a criminal manner? Anyone got that stat?? Anyone look for it? Nope, cause emotion fueled legislation like the patriot act is so much better than actual thinking.

69. Hear, Hear!

70. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be

self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

IMO, the exercise of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution grants those with guns (“arms ”) the power to trump the unalienable rights above of those without guns, because they can kill, threaten and take their property.

95. Me too.

74. before...

before we get to the repeal of the 2nd amendment, don't we need to fix the outright wholesale sellout of the congress? This is the most obvious example of the complete lack of representation and outright whoring to the corporations. You may be correct in actual root cause, but getting there is a different matter.

112. We are drowning in guns. Drain the swamp!

Symbolic, compromise measures do nothing but make the situation appear hopeless since they don't work. Increasing the cost to own or trade in guns dramatically, registering all guns and owners, increasing add-on sentences for crimes committed with guns, so that guns are increasingly rare is the way forward. Gun taxes should be raised to fund trauma centers around the country. Don't want to pay the tax? Your registration expires, and if you are found with that gun you can be in serious trouble. You have committed a felony offense and will never be allowed to own a firearm even after you've paid your debt to society. Steal a gun, go to jail for 20 years guaranteed, no parole.